DEFENCE OF THE EMPIRE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 177, 31 August 1909, Page 2

DEFENCE OF THE EMPIRE

MR. FISHER'S MISGIVINGS. By Cable.—Press 'ABsociation.-CnpyrigM Melbourne, August 30. Mr. Andrew Fisher, eal'reniier of the Commonwealth, regards the.new navy agreement witli serious misgivings. Jo is of opinion it does hot mean an Australian navy, but an improved Imperial squadron for Australia. If this is so, it is a huge national blunder; if it means a greater contribution by the Commonwealth towards the creation ot an Australian navy by the Motherland, it is less to be condemned; if it means a real Australian navy, then the oniy mistake was that it was mixed up with the loan policy. To build up a fleet or cm annv out of loan money would •nu in disaster and kill the national pride of the people. ESTABLISHIXd A XAVAL COLLEGE.

Sydney, August 30. The Minister of Defence, referring to the satisfactory results of the Defence Conference, says the Government has begun at once to establish a naval collogn of a first-class quality. HEALTH ofINDIAN TROOPS. London, August 21). Lord Kitchener, in a circular, emphasises the great improvement in tne health of the Indian army during the past few years. He mentions that-tne lleath rate amongst British troops since 1604 has fallen from 17.3 to 9 per thousand.

THE VALUE OF CRUISERS. SPECIALLY TO THE COLONIES. LORD BERESFORD'S ADVICE.

Received 30, 10.30 p.m. London, August 30. Lord Charles Bercsford, in a conversation reported in the Montreal Witness, states: "We want cruisers and will have them. If the trade route between Canada and Britain is not clear disaster will follow. Armed tramps are wnat we fear. Dreadnoughts are only for "Oing along with a large fleet." He added that cruisers can pursue armed tramps and prevent the destruction o. commerce, and that cruisers are muen better for the colonies.

MR. MASSEY'S CRITICISM. HON. MR. FOWLDS AMAZED. ( By Telegraph —Press Association. , Wellington, Last Night. , The Hon. .Mr. Fowlds, Minister Ijr | Defence, replying to Mr. Mnesey's criticism of the Defence Conference, expressed amazement at such criticism coming from one who so frequently paraded patriotism and imperialism. It was an open secret in connertion with the whole question that Mr. Massey nad been out of touch with a good many oi His principal followers. The speaker ventured to think tliey must have had a cold shiver when they read his latest pronouncement. What was there in the yariation from the original offer which called forth this criticism? It was a change from a Dreadnought to an Indomitable, and Lord Charles Beresford contended that the Indomitable was the superior fighting machine of the two. Certainly, if the battleship given by New Zealand is to have any direct mission in connection with the defence of our coasts ond surrounding seas, an Indomitable will.undoubtedly be tile superior fighting machine. Mr. Massey was disappointed because nothing had been arranged about the

ordmary-'land defence of New Zealand. Had he not read that it had been agrocd to unify the system of training, organisation, and transport under the Im--1 perial staff? How nkich further did he want the arrangement to go? Did Mr. ' Massey want to hand over the control

of the national training of youths of New Zealand to an authority outside

the people of New Zealand? there was no such intention. "You will remsm--1 her," continued Mr. Fowlds, "that Mr ? Massey deplored the folly of New Zca- , land not joining the Australian Federation. His latest opinion shows that ne ™ is still prepared to make the Dominion an appendage of Australia. I think ' Now Zealand recognises the far-seeing !j statesmanship which lias left New Zciland to -work out our destiny in our own way."